What's happened
On September 9, 2025, the US Supreme Court agreed to fast-track an appeal of a federal appeals court ruling that President Trump exceeded his authority by imposing broad tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The tariffs, aimed at addressing trade deficits and fentanyl trafficking, remain in effect pending the Supreme Court’s review, with oral arguments scheduled for November.
What's behind the headline?
Legal Boundaries and Executive Power
The core legal issue is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) grants the president authority to impose tariffs unilaterally. Courts have consistently ruled that while IEEPA allows the president to regulate imports during national emergencies, it does not explicitly authorize tariffs, which are traditionally a congressional prerogative. The 7-4 appellate decision underscored this, citing the "major questions" doctrine requiring clear congressional authorization for actions with vast economic impact.
Political and Economic Stakes
Trump’s tariffs have been a cornerstone of his second-term trade strategy, used to renegotiate deals and exert pressure on countries like China, Canada, and Mexico. The tariffs have generated significant federal revenue—over $140 billion in 2025 so far—and have been credited by Trump with strengthening US economic leverage. However, they have also caused market volatility, strained international relations, and provoked retaliatory consumer boycotts abroad.
Implications for Small Businesses and Global Trade
Small businesses and several states have challenged the tariffs, citing harm and uncertainty. The legal uncertainty affects ongoing trade negotiations and could force the US Treasury to refund billions if tariffs are struck down. The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision will set a precedent on the limits of executive power in trade policy, potentially reshaping US trade enforcement mechanisms.
Forecast
Given the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, there is a possibility of a ruling favorable to Trump’s expansive interpretation of IEEPA. However, the justices may also be cautious about endorsing broad unilateral tariff powers without explicit congressional approval. The decision will have lasting consequences for US trade policy, executive authority, and international economic relations.
What the papers say
The South China Morning Post highlights the legal trajectory, noting the Supreme Court’s fast-tracking of the appeal and the stakes involving trillions in customs duties. It quotes the Justice Department emphasizing the tariffs’ role in national security and economic defense. AP News underscores the administration’s urgent language, describing the tariffs as a "most significant economic and foreign-policy initiative" and quoting Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s plea for swift Supreme Court intervention.
The Independent provides detailed context on the tariffs’ rollout, the legal challenges, and the impact on small businesses and international consumer sentiment, citing Jeffrey Schwab of the Liberty Justice Center who calls the tariffs "unlawful" and harmful to small businesses. It also reports on the economic backlash in Canada and India, including boycotts of US products.
The Guardian and Al Jazeera focus on the legal reasoning, quoting the appeals court’s finding that IEEPA does not explicitly authorize tariffs and emphasizing the constitutional role of Congress in taxation. Trump’s reaction, calling the ruling "highly partisan" and warning of economic disaster, is noted across sources including The New Arab and Gulf News.
Bloomberg and The Japan Times capture Trump’s framing of tariffs as leverage for trade deals and economic strength, with Trump warning of severe consequences if the courts rule against him. The South China Morning Post also reports on Trump’s dismissal of health rumors and his comments on China’s military parade, providing broader political context.
Together, these sources offer a comprehensive view of the legal battle, political stakes, economic impact, and international reactions surrounding Trump’s tariff policies.
How we got here
In April 2025, President Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from most US trading partners, invoking the 1977 IEEPA emergency law. The tariffs targeted trade deficits and illicit drug trafficking but faced legal challenges arguing that only Congress can impose tariffs. Lower courts ruled Trump overstepped his authority, but the tariffs remain in place pending appeal.
Go deeper
- What is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and how does it relate to tariffs?
- How have Trump’s tariffs affected US businesses and international relations?
- What are the possible outcomes of the Supreme Court’s review of the tariff case?
Common question
-
What Does the Court Ruling Say About Trump's Tariffs?
On August 29, 2025, a significant legal decision was made regarding President Trump's broad tariffs. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Trump exceeded his authority when imposing these tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This ruling raises important questions about the legality of presidential trade powers and what it means for future US trade policies. Below, we explore what the court's decision entails, its potential impact, and what might happen next in this ongoing legal and economic saga.
-
Why Did the Supreme Court Rule Trump's Tariffs Illegal?
The recent Supreme Court decision declaring Trump's tariffs illegal has sparked widespread debate. Many wonder what led to this ruling and what it means for U.S. trade policy. In this page, we explore the legal reasons behind the decision, its impact on international relations, and what might happen next. If you're curious about the legal battles over tariffs and presidential powers, keep reading to find clear answers to your questions.
-
How Are Trade, Tech, and Ethics Shaping the Global Economy Today?
The world is witnessing significant shifts in trade policies, technology regulation, and ethical investing. From legal battles over tariffs to EU fines on tech giants and ethical divestments by major funds, these developments are influencing global markets and international relations. Curious about what these changes mean for businesses, governments, and consumers? Below are some key questions and answers to help you understand the current landscape.
More on these topics
-
Donald John Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
-
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (in case citations, Fed. Cir. or C.A.F.C.) is one of the 13 United States courts of appeals. It has special appellate jurisdiction over certain categories of cases in the U.S. federal court system
-
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States of America. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal and state court cases that involve a point of federal law, and original jurisdict
-
Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin is a Russian politician and former intelligence officer who has served as President of Russia since 2012, previously holding the position from 1999 until 2008.
-
Howard William Lutnick is an American billionaire businessman, who succeeded Bernard Gerald Cantor as the head of Cantor Fitzgerald. Lutnick is the chairman and CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald and BGC Partners.
-
A tariff is a tax imposed by a government of a country or of a supranational union on imports or exports of goods. Besides being a source of revenue for the government, import duties can also be a form of regulation of foreign trade and policy that taxes